If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Willie PArker

[quote=Mr Smartmonies]

Originally Posted by ikestops85

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":ix8fxm7m

You guys all want to focus on the Stuffs and not anything else I posted.
And because of that your all missing the point. Yes , Tomlinson had few more stuffs
than parker. But he made up for those stuffs with a higher percentage of 10+ yard runs. Not to mention receiving Yards yards. Peterson is another one. Look at his 10+ yards run percentage. If Parker was breaking that many 10+ yard runs per his carries, we wouldn't concern ourselves as much with the stuffs. Read the whole post Fella's. Don't shoot the messenger. The Fact is Parker doesn't do anything especially well. Not on 1st and 2nd down. Not in the red zone. Not as a pass receiving threat. Not on long runs. He gets stuffed alot. We can do better at that postion.

Sorry, I don't mean to be unfair but generally you seem to emphasize that WP has a problem getting positive yardage. That is why I focused my response on that part of your post. You want us to consider your entire post ... fine. Here goes ...

You listed 4 tables. First let's hope we can all agree that LT is the premier back in the league ... or at least in the top 2. Let's compare Willie to LT and see who ranks higher in the 4 categories YOU chose to highlight.

Now it seems to me that Willie beats LT in 3 out of the 4 categories you chose to show the deficiencies in Willie's game. Why MSM, you sly ole dog ... you set out all along to prove Willie is the best back in the league. I gotta hand it to you ... I never thought that was true but you are starting to convince me. I always looked at it as Willie is a "star" runningback in the league and is better than 98% of the other backs. However he is not a "superstar".

Now after last year I think the powers that be within the steeler organization realized that we have very little at that position after Willie. None of the other backs stepped up to the plate. That's probably why we keep hearing the comment that we have no depth at running back. Now comes draft day and the steelers are on the clock. Lo and behold they look at the draft board and see Mendy still on it. Here is a back that has the possiblity of becoming a superstar. He has the tools to excel as a speed back, a power back and a receiving back. Even if he doesn't he still would make a great tandem back with Willie. They could save some wear and tear on each others body. Even though the O-line is probably the biggest priority all the 1st round players we liked at that position have been taken so let's take Mendy. IF the one big year he had in college translates to the NFL we might have something extra special here. So they hand in the card with the name 'Rashard Mendenhall' written on it.

a) I never said get rid of wilie. I said he is a situational back.

b) your comparing LT's worst season to Parkers' best season

c) LT has 61 TD's last 3 years. Parker 19.

d) Tomlinson made up for his poor 1st down carries. On 2nd down he averaged 4.6 YPC. Parker fell even further to 3.9. LT was in the top 10 on 2nd down. Parker raned 27th on 2nd.

e) Receving Yards - LT has 3 times the amount of Receving yards.

F) Every team focuses on LT. Gameplans are drawn up focusing on LT. Coaches lose sleep over LT. Teams are more concerned with Ben then they are parker at this point in their careers. Lt finds the Endzone. Parker wouldn't know what it is if you landed a plane there.[/quote:ix8fxm7m]

Re: Willie PArker

[quote=Mr Smartmonies]

Originally Posted by BURGH86STEEL

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":2er534ks

You guys all want to focus on the Stuffs and not anything else I posted.
And because of that your all missing the point. Yes , Tomlinson had few more stuffs
than parker. But he made up for those stuffs with a higher percentage of 10+ yard runs. Not to mention receiving Yards yards. Peterson is another one. Look at his 10+ yards run percentage. If Parker was breaking that many 10+ yard runs per his carries, we wouldn't concern ourselves as much with the stuffs. Read the whole post Fella's. Don't shoot the messenger. The Fact is Parker doesn't do anything especially well. Not on 1st and 2nd down. Not in the red zone. Not as a pass receiving threat. Not on long runs. He gets stuffed alot. We can do better at that postion.

The problem is you selectively picked stats to prove a point. You did not take other things into consideration. For instance, as some others have mentioned you blame Parker and not the Oline. When Ben takes a sack its the Oline and protection.

nonsense. Ben had 32 TD passes and 105 percent passer rating behind the pussies.
And his Yards meant something. They were for 3rd downs and TD's. He elevated his game despite the line. Parker can't do that. He can't break tackles. He doesn't possess great vision. He gets way to many carrries. He's the most over rated player in football.[/quote:2er534ks]

Re: Willie PArker

Kirby Wilson is an advocate of RB screens and RB safety valves. He was unsuccessful the last several years in convincing the opposition that Willie Parker could catch the ball on screens over either shoulder. The opponents DL one gapped every down.

We utilized fairly wide sets or spacing on the offensive line last year and when we ran on first down Parker faced too much defensive penetration. When we tightened our line spacing the LB's boxed Willie knowing he wasn't going to catch the ball and they fell back playing over/under with the CB's making it more difficult for Hines and Holmes.

We suffered due to the lack of a complete set of plays that utilized screens and dump offs. If Willie could catch the ball over either shoulder he may have lead the league in all categories. (You can probably conceptualize the reason for drafting Mendenhall.)

I can forsee an offense this year with two back sets. It could be Willie and Davis, Willie and Mendenhall, or Davis and Mendenhall, Russell and etc. We could have Heath/Spaeth in motion with passes to the vacated strong side. There will be less WR floods to one side or the other. If we go to two TE sets then Mendenhall or Davis in the backfield. Look for Sweed to play a big role in this set.

Re: Willie PArker

[quote=ShawnMedGuy]

Originally Posted by Mr Smartmonies

Originally Posted by BURGH86STEEL

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":2lbyftca

You guys all want to focus on the Stuffs and not anything else I posted.
And because of that your all missing the point. Yes , Tomlinson had few more stuffs
than parker. But he made up for those stuffs with a higher percentage of 10+ yard runs. Not to mention receiving Yards yards. Peterson is another one. Look at his 10+ yards run percentage. If Parker was breaking that many 10+ yard runs per his carries, we wouldn't concern ourselves as much with the stuffs. Read the whole post Fella's. Don't shoot the messenger. The Fact is Parker doesn't do anything especially well. Not on 1st and 2nd down. Not in the red zone. Not as a pass receiving threat. Not on long runs. He gets stuffed alot. We can do better at that postion.

The problem is you selectively picked stats to prove a point. You did not take other things into consideration. For instance, as some others have mentioned you blame Parker and not the Oline. When Ben takes a sack its the Oline and protection.

nonsense. Ben had 32 TD passes and 105 percent passer rating behind the pussies.
And his Yards meant something. They were for 3rd downs and TD's. He elevated his game despite the line. Parker can't do that. He can't break tackles. He doesn't possess great vision. He gets way to many carrries. He's the most over rated player in football.

You make me weep tears of joy...one person who gets it.[/quote:2lbyftca]

Funny how perspectives can be different...you see someone who gets it. I see two someones (MSM, SMG) who don't.

d) Tomlinson made up for his poor 1st down carries. On 2nd down he averaged 4.6 YPC. Parker fell even further to 3.9. LT was in the top 10 on 2nd down. Parker raned 27th on 2nd.

e) Receving Yards - LT has 3 times the amount of Receving yards.

F) Every team focuses on LT. Gameplans are drawn up focusing on LT. Coaches lose sleep over LT. Teams are more concerned with Ben then they are parker at this point in their careers. Lt finds the Endzone. Parker wouldn't know what it is if you landed a plane there.

Concentrating on Ben instead of the running game (i.e. Willie Parker), I don't think is the way to beat the Steelers. The team that has had the best success against the Steelers in our division has been the Ravens. The ravens are also the team that FWP has been ineffective against...

Re: Willie PArker

Originally Posted by Chemsteel

Kirby Wilson is an advocate of RB screens and RB safety valves. He was unsuccessful the last several years in convincing the opposition that Willie Parker could catch the ball on screens over either shoulder. The opponents DL one gapped every down.

We utilized fairly wide sets or spacing on the offensive line last year and when we ran on first down Parker faced too much defensive penetration. When we tightened our line spacing the LB's boxed Willie knowing he wasn't going to catch the ball and they fell back playing over/under with the CB's making it more difficult for Hines and Holmes.

We suffered due to the lack of a complete set of plays that utilized screens and dump offs. If Willie could catch the ball over either shoulder he may have lead the league in all categories. (You can probably conceptualize the reason for drafting Mendenhall.)

I can forsee an offense this year with two back sets. It could be Willie and Davis, Willie and Mendenhall, or Davis and Mendenhall, Russell and etc. We could have Heath/Spaeth in motion with passes to the vacated strong side. There will be less WR floods to one side or the other. If we go to two TE sets then Mendenhall or Davis in the backfield. Look for Sweed to play a big role in this set.

A guy that probably knows his football better than anyone on these boards...saying Parker is not a receiving threat. Thank you.

Re: Willie PArker

[quote=stlrz d][quote=ShawnMedGuy]

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":30iobawu

Originally Posted by BURGH86STEEL

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":30iobawu

You guys all want to focus on the Stuffs and not anything else I posted.
And because of that your all missing the point. Yes , Tomlinson had few more stuffs
than parker. But he made up for those stuffs with a higher percentage of 10+ yard runs. Not to mention receiving Yards yards. Peterson is another one. Look at his 10+ yards run percentage. If Parker was breaking that many 10+ yard runs per his carries, we wouldn't concern ourselves as much with the stuffs. Read the whole post Fella's. Don't shoot the messenger. The Fact is Parker doesn't do anything especially well. Not on 1st and 2nd down. Not in the red zone. Not as a pass receiving threat. Not on long runs. He gets stuffed alot. We can do better at that postion.

The problem is you selectively picked stats to prove a point. You did not take other things into consideration. For instance, as some others have mentioned you blame Parker and not the Oline. When Ben takes a sack its the Oline and protection.

nonsense. Ben had 32 TD passes and 105 percent passer rating behind the pussies.
And his Yards meant something. They were for 3rd downs and TD's. He elevated his game despite the line. Parker can't do that. He can't break tackles. He doesn't possess great vision. He gets way to many carrries. He's the most over rated player in football.

You make me weep tears of joy...one person who gets it.[/quote:30iobawu]

Funny how perspectives can be different...you see someone who gets it. I see two someones (MSM, SMG) who don't. [/quote:30iobawu]

Well...thats because you smoke crack. I mean anyone who disagrees with me...MUST be on drugs.

Re: Willie PArker

Originally Posted by ShawnMedGuy

Originally Posted by Chemsteel

Kirby Wilson is an advocate of RB screens and RB safety valves. He was unsuccessful the last several years in convincing the opposition that Willie Parker could catch the ball on screens over either shoulder. The opponents DL one gapped every down.

We utilized fairly wide sets or spacing on the offensive line last year and when we ran on first down Parker faced too much defensive penetration. When we tightened our line spacing the LB's boxed Willie knowing he wasn't going to catch the ball and they fell back playing over/under with the CB's making it more difficult for Hines and Holmes.

We suffered due to the lack of a complete set of plays that utilized screens and dump offs. If Willie could catch the ball over either shoulder he may have lead the league in all categories. (You can probably conceptualize the reason for drafting Mendenhall.)

I can forsee an offense this year with two back sets. It could be Willie and Davis, Willie and Mendenhall, or Davis and Mendenhall, Russell and etc. We could have Heath/Spaeth in motion with passes to the vacated strong side. There will be less WR floods to one side or the other. If we go to two TE sets then Mendenhall or Davis in the backfield. Look for Sweed to play a big role in this set.

A guy that probably knows his football better than anyone on these boards...saying Parker is not a receiving threat. Thank you.

If Parker was a receiving threat he would have Marshall Faulk like numbers and 40-50 catches a season. It's not like the coaches saw he was a great receiver out of the backfield and just decided not to use him. He just isn't good at that part of the game.

The TEs will be a bigger part of our success this season. We have a great one and a good one. Throw the ball to them early and often.

Playing Fantasy Football does not qualify you to be the in the front office or on the coaching staff of the Pittsburgh Steelers. They are professionals and you are not!

Re: Willie PArker

[quote=Mr Smartmonies]

Originally Posted by BURGH86STEEL

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":2puxmgdp

You guys all want to focus on the Stuffs and not anything else I posted.
And because of that your all missing the point. Yes , Tomlinson had few more stuffs
than parker. But he made up for those stuffs with a higher percentage of 10+ yard runs. Not to mention receiving Yards yards. Peterson is another one. Look at his 10+ yards run percentage. If Parker was breaking that many 10+ yard runs per his carries, we wouldn't concern ourselves as much with the stuffs. Read the whole post Fella's. Don't shoot the messenger. The Fact is Parker doesn't do anything especially well. Not on 1st and 2nd down. Not in the red zone. Not as a pass receiving threat. Not on long runs. He gets stuffed alot. We can do better at that postion.

The problem is you selectively picked stats to prove a point. You did not take other things into consideration. For instance, as some others have mentioned you blame Parker and not the Oline. When Ben takes a sack its the Oline and protection.

nonsense. Ben had 32 TD passes and 105 percent passer rating behind the pussies.
And his Yards meant something. They were for 3rd downs and TD's. He elevated his game despite the line. Parker can't do that. He can't break tackles. He doesn't possess great vision. He gets way to many carrries. He's the most over rated player in football.[/quote:2puxmgdp]

Didn't Parker almost lead the league in rushing yardage last season behind the, um, pussies? And he still broke off long runs despite havign to carry the load at running back with so many carries, so you can look at that in a couple of ways as well. Look, I'm not going to pull 1,000 stats and post them because, well, it's not that important to me and I just don't have the time, but this is getting crazy. It really boils down to this, If people want Willie Parker out of the starters role in leiu of a guy who hasn;t played a down in the NFL, well, then the crack pipe has been passed one time too many. That being said, this conversation is light-years ahead of the WP conversations on the other board. People can actually <<wait for it>> agree to disagree on here.